After Brexit’s turmoil within the political bubble, we see a return to the usual obfuscations.
Theresa May stated, Brexit means Brexit. A meaningless phrase. In our desperation to see the statists acknowledge the dissent of 17.4 million brits, we assumed it was her promise.
However, we begin to wonder about the disconnect between the electorate, party members and the Westminster parliamentarians. Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and even the Scottish Nationalists leant towards staying in the EU.
Direct questioning of these elected representative is now essential preferably in person. To that end here are some questions to size up their integrity:
Why do we borrow money with interest from the Bank of England when alternatives like the Bradbury pound exists?
If the Queen has no discretion in consenting to statutes passed by the parliament, why do we still need this ceremonial consent?
Why does the Crown Corporation (City of London) have a permanent unelected “Remembrancer” in the Houses of Parliament?
Would they resign having lost the backing of their constituency especially in relation to Brexit?
Will they vote to repeal the European Communities Act 1972?
Does the existence of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 disprove that vaccines are safe?
The US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been caught twice lying about its data (Swine flu data scrubbed and MMR study distorted). Does the MMR fraud not warrant a criminal prosecution of the officers of Merck, the makers of the MMR vaccine?
Is it ethical and lawful to impose an agreement like the TTIP, arrived at in secrecy upon the public?
Is it ethical and lawful to impose a private, corporate court upon a nation state as envisaged in the ISDS?
Is it ethical or lawful to grant statutory immunity to the Bank of International Settlements, the IMF, Bank of England and the Federal Reserve? Are these bodies above the “law”? Where is the equality before the “law”?
Are there any rights that cannot be violated by the state? If there are none, then what rights do states claim to protect?
If the nation state does not serve the common man/woman, whom does it serve and why are we compelled to honour or consent to their interests?
Let’s call them litmus test questions. The MPs squirming, blathering will clearly show their affiliations. 17.4 Million Brexiteers have questions for their local MPs. Updated: 14/08/2016
Filmmaker Natalie Beer sets off on a journey around the world speaking to leading doctors, scientists and families to find out the truth about the autism epidemic and whether or not vaccines have a role to play.
The film explores the common misconception that autism is solely genetic and looks into scientists concerns over recent years about environmental factors such as medication and pesticides which continue to leave our children with physical and neurological damage.
Note: This is not an endorsement of the movie as I have not seen it, however anyone asking questions of the murderous dogma of vaccines will get a welcome audience.
Published on May 13, 2016
Since the release of the 1998 paper in The Lancet, which suggested the possibility of a link between a novel form of bowel disease, autism, and the MMR vaccine, one of the report’s co-authors, Dr. Andrew Wakefield has been the subject of great controversy and defamation. Here, Wakefield addresses the allegations of fraud, conflict of interest, and medical misconduct that have been leveled against him.
…when the paper was published I recommended in a highly publicized press conference that single measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines be used instead of MMR until the issue of MMR’s questionable safety was resolved scientifically. These vaccines were available in the US and UK at the time.
After this recommendation was made, in the UK the government withdrew the importation license for the single vaccine and Merck – the manufacturer of the MMR vaccine – withdrew the option of single vaccines in the US. In short, parents and doctors who did not want MMR could no longer get single vaccines…
Link to article Note: If health was the concern and not profit, the single vaccine shots should have been allowed. The corporation and State blocked that option!